jcm-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Clinical Insights and Emerging Strategies in Chronic Pain Management

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Anesthesiology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 February 2026 | Viewed by 275

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail
Guest Editor
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, 895 Muwang-ro, Iksan-si 54538, Republic of Korea
Interests: critical care medicine; chronic pain; pain management

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Chronic pain remains a significant public health concern, and profoundly affects individuals' physical, emotional, and social well-being. This Special Issue focuses on advancements in our understanding and management of chronic neuropathic pain, with an emphasis on innovative diagnostic approaches, patient stratification, and interdisciplinary treatment strategies. Key areas of interest include the role of digital health tools, real-world evidence, and the comparative effectiveness of multimodal pain management models, particularly in conditions such as fibromyalgia, postherpetic neuralgia, and complex regional pain syndrome. We aim to compile contributions from diverse clinical disciplines in order to address early diagnosis, optimize long-term outcomes, and explore emerging therapies, including neuromodulation and pharmacological interventions. This Special Issue seeks to provide actionable insights for clinicians and researchers, fostering a collaborative dialogue that shapes the future of chronic neuropathic pain management.

Prof. Dr. Cheol Lee
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • chronic pain
  • neuropathic pain
  • multimodal pain management
  • digital health
  • real-world evidence
  • interdiscipli-nary care

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

11 pages, 535 KB  
Article
Comparison of Pulsed Radiofrequency and Endoscopic Piriformis Release for Refractory Piriformis Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
by Eunsung Park, Duyoung Choi and Cheol Lee
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(16), 5908; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14165908 - 21 Aug 2025
Viewed by 189
Abstract
Background/Objective: Piriformis syndrome (PS) causes sciatic nerve entrapment and chronic pain. In refractory cases, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and endoscopic piriformis release (EPR) are used, but comparative evidence is limited. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared PRF and EPR in patients treated from 2018 [...] Read more.
Background/Objective: Piriformis syndrome (PS) causes sciatic nerve entrapment and chronic pain. In refractory cases, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and endoscopic piriformis release (EPR) are used, but comparative evidence is limited. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared PRF and EPR in patients treated from 2018 to 2024 at a tertiary hospital using propensity score matching (PSM). Patients with PS, unresponsive to conservative treatment (≥3 months), were included. PRF targeted the sciatic nerve under imaging guidance; EPR involved endoscopic decompression. Primary outcomes were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores at 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, reintervention rates, complications, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), where available. After PSM, 115 patients were analyzed per cohort. Multivariate regression identified the predictors of pain improvement. Results: From 465 eligible patients (PRF 350; EPR 115), after PSM, 230 patients were analyzed (115 per cohort). The baseline NRS score was 7.4 ± 1.4 (PRF) vs. 7.5 ± 1.3 (EPR). At 3 months, EPR showed a lower NRS score (2.6 ± 1.3) compared to PRF (3.2 ± 1.6; p = 0.032). At 6 months, the EPR NRS score was 2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.9 ± 1.5 for PRF (p = 0.018). EPR had a higher rate of ≥50% NRS score reduction (78% vs. 65%; p = 0.041). EPR patients reported higher satisfaction and fewer reinterventions but more complications. Regression analysis identified EPR (OR = 2.15), higher baseline NRS scores, and shorter symptom duration as predictors of improvement. Conclusions: EPR provided superior pain relief compared to PRF at 3 and 6 months, although with a higher risk of complications. PRF remains a safer initial option. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Insights and Emerging Strategies in Chronic Pain Management)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop